Dynamic Top-k Estimation Consolidates Disagreement between Feature Attribution Methods
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Feature attribution scores are used for explaining the prediction of a text classifier to users by highlighting a k number of tokens. In this work, we propose a way to determine the number of optimal k tokens that should be displayed from sequential properties of the attribution scores. Our approach is dynamic across sentences, method-agnostic, and deals with sentence length bias. We compare agreement between multiple methods and humans on an NLI task, using fixed k and dynamic k. We find that perturbation-based methods and Vanilla Gradient exhibit highest agreement on most method--method and method--human agreement metrics with a static k. Their advantage over other methods disappears with dynamic ks which mainly improve Integrated Gradient and GradientXInput. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that sequential properties of attribution scores are informative for consolidating attribution signals for human interpretation.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2023.
Builds on
19 of 36 references.
References · 19
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,307
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
- 2017Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differencescited by 1,458
- 2020Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How should we define and evaluate faithfulness?cited by 599
- 2018e-SNLI: Natural Language Inference with Natural Language Explanationscited by 468
- 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 159
- 2022The Disagreement Problem in Explainable Machine Learning: A Practitioner's Perspectivecited by 159
- 2021Post-hoc Interpretability for Neural NLP: A Surveycited by 156
7 more
- 2021"Will You Find These Shortcuts?" A Protocol for Evaluating the Faithfulness of Input Salience Methods for Text Classificationcited by 66
- 2021How can I choose an explainer? An Application-grounded Evaluation of Post-hoc Explanationscited by 58
- 2019Can I Trust the Explainer? Verifying Post-hoc Explanatory Methodscited by 38
- 2021Evaluating Saliency Methods for Neural Language Modelscited by 37
- 2022ferret: a Framework for Benchmarking Explainers on Transformerscited by 26
- 2020Evaluating Explanation Methods for Neural Machine Translationcited by 14
- 2022A Song of (Dis)agreement: Evaluating the Evaluation of Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Natural Language Processingcited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2024The Role of Syntactic Span Preferences in Post-Hoc Explanation Disagreementcited by 3
- 2025Explanation Bias is a Product: Revealing the Hidden Lexical and Position Preferences in Post-Hoc Feature Attributioncited by 0
- 2026ICE: Intervention-Consistent Explanation Evaluation with Statistical Grounding for LLMscited by 0
- 2026ToxiTrace: Gradient-Aligned Training for Explainable Chinese Toxicity Detectioncited by 0
- 2026ToxiTrace: Gradient-Aligned Training for Explainable Chinese Toxicity Detection14 Apr 2026
- 2026ICE: Intervention-Consistent Explanation Evaluation with Statistical Grounding for LLMs19 Mar 2026
- 2025Explanation Bias is a Product: Revealing the Hidden Lexical and Position Preferences in Post-Hoc Feature Attribution11 Dec 2025
- 2024The Role of Syntactic Span Preferences in Post-Hoc Explanation Disagreement28 Mar 2024